Talk:Fort Good Hope

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for Fort Simpson, move others. Since the Fort Simpson situation would benefit for further comments and it would make no sense to relist the others because of one unclear case, I've started a separate move request at Talk:Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories. Please continue the discussion there. Jafeluv (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories → Fort Good Hope — All of these appear to be unique names with no other usage. There is the one exception of the former Fort Simpson (Columbia Department) in British Columbia but the current NWT community appears to be the main usage. Currently all undisambiguated names are redirects to the community. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Fort Liard, Northwest Territories → Fort Liard
• Fort Providence, Northwest Territories → Fort Providence
• Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories → Fort Resolution
• Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories → Fort Simpson
• Norman Wells, Northwest Territories → Norman Wells

• Support - The proposed moves implement the naming convention at WP:CANSTYLE and conform to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As for Fort Simpson, Google results point overwhelmingly to the NWT community rather than the former HBC post (a hatnote easily addresses any confusion between the two).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment While four of these are unique names, Fort Simpson is not. Fort Simpson (Columbia Department) was another important post, now Port Simpson, British Columbia, which as I recall is a redirect to modern Lax Kwa'laams though the English name remains in use. "Fort Simpson" may be a historical name only in BC, but it remains significant and Fort Simpson should be, if anything, a disambiguation page....I think there's another Fort Simpson either in another part of Canada, or perhaps (historically I think) in the US, also....Skookum1 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the old fort is significant. But nobody is saying that the historic Fort Simpson is not significant, merely that three times more readers come looking for the article on the community than looking for the article on the former fort (with such usage in the wider world being borne out by the Google search). A hatnote directs readers interested in the fort as quickly and efficiently as a DAB page, while a DAB page adds an unnecessary layer to those readers looking for the article on the community. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support all subject to confirmation of Fort Simpson being confirmed as unique or primary. Unnecessary disambiguation is pointless and confusing. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fort Good Hope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201214233/http://www.statsnwt.ca/community-data/Profile%20PDF/Fort%20Good%20Hope.pdf to http://www.statsnwt.ca/community-data/Profile%20PDF/Fort%20Good%20Hope.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070611030418/http://nwt-tno.inac-ainc.gc.ca/mpf/stakehld/kasgcncl_e.htm to http://nwt-tno.inac-ainc.gc.ca/mpf/stakehld/kasgcncl_e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)